Centre for Social and Early Emotional Development, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Geelong, Victoria, 3125, Australia.
Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Centre for Adolescent Health, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 26;18(1):151. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0586-7.
Participant retention strategies that minimise attrition in longitudinal cohort studies have evolved considerably in recent years. This study aimed to assess, via systematic review and meta-analysis, the effectiveness of both traditional strategies and contemporary innovations for retention adopted by longitudinal cohort studies in the past decade.
Health research databases were searched for retention strategies used within longitudinal cohort studies published in the 10-years prior, with 143 eligible longitudinal cohort studies identified (141 articles; sample size range: 30 to 61,895). Details on retention strategies and rates, research designs, and participant demographics were extracted. Meta-analyses of retained proportions were performed to examine the association between cohort retention rate and individual and thematically grouped retention strategies.
Results identified 95 retention strategies, broadly classed as either: barrier-reduction, community-building, follow-up/reminder, or tracing strategies. Forty-four of these strategies had not been identified in previous reviews. Meta-regressions indicated that studies using barrier-reduction strategies retained 10% more of their sample (95%CI [0.13 to 1.08]; p = .01); however, studies using follow-up/reminder strategies lost an additional 10% of their sample (95%CI [- 1.19 to - 0.21]; p = .02). The overall number of strategies employed was not associated with retention.
Employing a larger number of retention strategies may not be associated with improved retention in longitudinal cohort studies, contrary to earlier narrative reviews. Results suggest that strategies that aim to reduce participant burden (e.g., flexibility in data collection methods) might be most effective in maximising cohort retention.
近年来,旨在最大限度减少纵向队列研究中研究对象流失的参与保留策略有了很大的发展。本研究旨在通过系统回顾和荟萃分析,评估过去十年中纵向队列研究中采用的传统策略和当代创新策略对保留的有效性。
在过去十年中发表的纵向队列研究中,检索健康研究数据库中使用的保留策略,确定了 143 项符合条件的纵向队列研究(141 篇文章;样本量范围:30 至 61895)。提取保留策略和保留率、研究设计和参与者人口统计学特征的详细信息。对保留比例进行荟萃分析,以检查队列保留率与个体和主题分组保留策略之间的关系。
结果确定了 95 种保留策略,大致分为减少障碍、建立社区、随访/提醒或追踪策略。其中 44 种策略在以前的综述中没有被发现。元回归表明,使用减少障碍策略的研究保留了 10%的样本(95%CI [0.13 至 1.08];p=0.01);然而,使用随访/提醒策略的研究失去了额外的 10%的样本(95%CI [-1.19 至 -0.21];p=0.02)。所采用的策略数量与保留率无关。
与早期的叙述性综述相反,在纵向队列研究中,采用更多的保留策略可能不会与保留率的提高相关。结果表明,旨在减轻参与者负担的策略(例如,数据收集方法的灵活性)可能是最大限度地保留队列的最有效方法。